AEM Education and Training 31: A qualitative assessment of emergency medicine residents’ receptivity to feedback
Welcome to the thirty first episode of the AEM Education and Training Podcast, a FOAMed podcast collaboration between the Academic Emergency Medicine Education and Training Journal and Brown Emergency Medicine.
Find this podcast series on iTunes here.
DISCUSSING:
A qualitative assessment of emergency medicine residents’ receptivity to feedback
Jenna Fredette MD, Barret Michalec PhD, Amber Billet MD, Heather Auerbach MD, Jessica Dixon, Christy Poole RN, Richard Bounds MD
LISTEN NOW: INTERVIEW WITH AUTHORS
Jenna Fredette, MD
Program Director
Co-Director Medical Education Fellowship
Department of Emergency Medicine
Christiana Care Health System
Clinical Associate Professor
Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University
Richard Bounds, MD, FACEP, FAAEM
Program Director
Emergency Medicine Residency Program
University of Vermont Medical Center
Abstract
Background
Effective feedback is the cornerstone of competency-based education. The emergency department (ED) is a unique learning and feedback environment. Developing our understanding of emergency medicine (EM) residents’ experiences around feedback will improve resident training and inform EM faculty development programs.
Objective
This qualitative study explores the feedback culture and practices in EM and resident's experiences and attitudes toward feedback in this specific training environment.
Methods
At a large categorical EM program, 15 residents voluntarily participated in semistructured interviews regarding feedback. These individual interviews were performed by a nonphysician investigator and transcripts underwent an inductive multistep coding process. Transcripts were analyzed to identify common factors influencing feedback and then comparisons were made between residents to explore the interconnectedness of identified factors and further categorize consistent themes.
Results
Factors inherent to the ED environment make the delivery of effective feedback challenging. Residents also revealed that feedback-seeking/-avoidant behavior and receptivity to feedback are multifactorial. Residents actively seek feedback when they feel that they performed well but tend to avoid feedback interactions when they expect constructive feedback. Finally, residents filter feedback based on attending personality and perceived practice style as well as their own desired practice style.
Conclusions
It is important for program leaders to understand their residents’ experiences with feedback and engage both faculty and residents in conversations around feedback delivery and receptivity. An improved understanding of these experiences might also reveal barriers to performance assessment and guide efforts to improve the accuracy and reliability of resident evaluations.